Enzymes ages: rethinking use in animal nutrition

Enzymes through the ages: rethinking their use in animal nutrition

Published Tuesday, 15th July 2025

Mike Bedford, Director, Research and Technical Product Launch

The use of enzymes in monogastric animal nutrition has evolved considerably over the past four decades. What initially began in Finland in 1984 as a solution to increase nutrient availability from barley rations has since blossomed into a billion-dollar global industry. For animal nutritionists and farmers, the adoption of fibre-degrading enzymes and phytase has played a central role in improving feed efficiency, reducing environmental impacts, and unlocking new nutritional strategies.

However, despite these advances, it’s arguable that scientific dogma has slowed down the innovation process, and that phytases has in fact a lot more to offer.

A quick history of enzymes

The initial use of non-starch polysaccharide-degrading enzymes (NSPases), particularly β-glucanases, in the early 1980s was primarily aimed at reducing viscosity in barley-based diets. This small-scale innovation enabled barley, a grain previously regarded as nutritionally inferior due to its high fibre content, to be used more effectively in monogastric diets. By the late 1980s and 1990s, enzyme use expanded into wheat and corn-based diets, supported by growing research into xylanases and other NSP-degrading enzymes.

These enzymes were not only found to improve nutrient digestibility, but also to improve gut health and protein utilisation.

Phytase, on the other hand, found its footing in the early 1990s, driven not by nutritional goals but by regulatory pressure. Regions like the Netherlands and Northern Germany faced strict environmental controls on phosphorus output due to water contamination from animal manure; without phytase, animal agriculture in these regions risked becoming unsustainable. The increased release of available phosphorus due to phytase was good news for both the economy and the environment and its use expanded rapidly worldwide, especially after the 2007 phosphate crisis, when rising phosphate prices drove a surge in phytase adoption.

Scientific paradigms and the cost of dogma

While enzyme adoption has grown steadily, some in the field argue that accepted scientific belief has stifled unlocking phytase’s full potential. The focus on select measurable outcomes e.g., phosphorus availability or fibre viscosity, has led to a reductionist view of enzyme function, meaning enzyme use has often been optimised for compliance or cost savings, rather than fully explored for its full biological or metabolic benefits.

For example, commercial use of phytase today primarily targets only the higher phytate esters (from inositol hexaphosphate, IP6 to IP3) leaving lower esters (IP2 and IP1) untouched. Yet, growing evidence suggests that full phytate degradation, including conversion to inositol by removing all six phosphate groups, may offer significant metabolic advantages such as improved protein digestibility, immune function, and oxygen transport in rapidly growing birds.

In some regions, especially those with high altitude for example, incomplete oxygenation has been linked to biological challenges such as woody breast myopathy, ascites and femoral head necrosis. In cases like these, enhanced red blood cell function as a result of greater inositol availability due to more complete phytate breakdown, could have improved welfare and performance benefits.

Similarly, NSPases have often been treated as interchangeable tools for reducing intestinal viscosity or breaking down cell walls, but their full potential remains under explored. Differentiating between prebiotic, stimbiotic, and structural roles requires a deeper understanding of enzyme-substrate interactions and how oligosaccharide generation may influence the microbiome and intestinal health. The question of optimal oligosaccharide types, eg xylans, mannans, glucans, or combinations thereof, also remains open, with dose response and molecular structure playing crucial roles.

Enzymes are not commodities

There is a persistent perception in the industry…